Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said this morning on Fox News that the Aurora theater massacre just shows that “weapons of war don’t belong on the streets.”
“We’ve got to sit down and really come to grips with what is sold to the average citizen in America. I have no problem with people being licensed and buying a firearm. But these are weapons that you are only going to be using to kill people in close combat,” Feinstein said, lamenting the expiration of her 10-year bill that led to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban but hasn’t been renewed since 2004.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) countered that suspect James Holmes is “sick and demented, you know, evil individual.”
“And, unfortunately, I don’t think society can keep sick and demented individuals from obtaining any type of weapon to kill people. I mean, somebody who wants to purposely harm another individual is going to find a method of doing it,” Johnson said. “…This isn’t an issue about guns. This is just really an issue about sick, demented individuals. And it’s a tragedy and I don’t think there is a solution here in Washington to solve this problem.”
“I wish I could wave a magic and pass a law to prevent something like this from the future,” he added. “But the fact of the matter is, I really don’t think there is, other than look to our families, look to our communities, starting with our education system.”
Feinstein said people like Holmes “use these weapons because they can get them.”
“Why do you need this? You don’t need it for hunting. Most states have limits on the number of bullets you can have for a clip. You don’t need it for self defense,” she said.
Johnson retorted that “criminals will always get whatever they want.”
“The left used the term assault rifles,” he said. “They’re really talking about semi-automatic weapons that really are use in hunting.”
“I would be very surprised if hunters in your state hunted with a 100-round ammunition feeding devices,” Feinstein argued. “In the bill I did, we exempted 375 rifles and shot guns by name so that no weapon used for hunting was affected at all.”
So, the single most “employed” weapon of war, both today, hisotrically, on a battlefield and on the streets, is the human brain. All else are tools in service to the will and designs of that/those brains.
So, in essence, DiFi wants to remove those weapons from the streets. This leaves us with what…?
Libtards and democrats, aka zombies.
S/F, Webfoot Warrior
Does anyone else get really irritated when the Left successfully shifts the Second Amendment during debate to somehow “the right to hunt”?
The heart of the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and sport shooting. They are simply a given.
Historical note for the Senator from California: In 1789 when the Constitution was adopted Muskets and Rifles the most common firearms privately owned, were the most advanced weapons of war in existence short of cannon.
datechguy – There’s something more recent – The Miller case in the Supreme Court. They held sawed-off shotguns could be made illegal precisely because they are not weapons of war. Implication: Weapons of war are perfectly legal.
In reference to this PJ posting: http://pjmedia.com/blog/swat-and-the-second-amendment/
There are police departments that forbid high-speed chases in urban/populated areas when pursuing criminals.
Now, DiFi… please explain to me why SWAT-types are allowed to fire off those weapons of war in a civilian-populated area? So, why don’t you write up a law that forbids the use of true weapons of war (full auto ARs, etc.) in civilian areas? Including a ban on LEOs using them. We civilian-types out here would be safer from you government-types.
You mean she wasn’t commenting about the “Fast & Furious” operation that put weapons of war on the street in Mexico?
– have security like this billionaire.
It may come as a surprise to Senator Feinstein that AR style rifles are extremely popular firearms widely used by hunters,target shooters and other law abiding citizens. Variants of military firearms have been in the hands of private citizens since colonial days. In fact it is difficult to find any modern firearm not rooted to some degree in military applications. That includes the .357 revolver the Senator was once reported to carry in her purse for personal protection. In addition, is seems the US jurisdictions with the highest murder rates involving firearms are those with the most stringent gun control laws. Criminals appear to prefer unarmed, defenseless victims.
The hypocrite speaks. Exploiting victims like always. The same senator that has been known to have a concealed weapon permit and doesn’t want peons to have the same. Note that California is may issue and she agrees with it. If you don’t want to be a victim that’s too bad. Being the Carolyn McCarthy of the west coast she’s never seen gun control she didn’t approve of. How nice of her to want to exempt all those hunting guns from her unconstitutional legislation.
So an evil person (there is no other adequate description) flunking out of college and associated with an OWS type organization out of San Diago, CA, uses the internet to research his plan, uses unemployment checks from our federal government to purchase weapons and ammo and the makings of numerous – NUMEROUS – improvised explosives (including a 5 gallon container of gasoline intended to burn down the apartment building he was living in) in direct violation of federal law…….and she wants to ban the weapon that jammed?
The more the leftists can make this an argument about the tools the murderer used – guns only of course while ignoring the simple and readily created gasoline bomb and similar items, the less we will actually be talking about what created such a monster in the first place.
THAT is the real tragedy about the political spinmeisters…
In the words of George Jonas…
Irrational opponents have a visceral fear of guns. It may, perhaps, be modified by hypnosis or psychotheraphy but not by evidence or rational argument. Rational opponents have no phobias as such, but they have a political agenda. They recoil from seeing weapons–symbols of individual soverighty—in the hands of private citizens. It interferes with their ideal of power that, in their view, ought to belong exclusively to the state. Perhaps such people have a phobia after all: a phobia to liberty.
The gun lobby is uaually described as “powerful” in the media, but in fact the anti-gun lobby is far more powerful and pervasive in most Western societies.
Being urban and well connected, culturally as well as economically, it has the ear of administrators and legistlaters. A successful lobby well entrenched in the corridors of power is unlikely to be swayed by the statisstical evidence and common sense……..
“The gun lobby is uaually described as “powerful” in the media,”
yet there is not ONE Major Corporate Donor to the NRA. It’s all Grass Roots.
In Fact the NRA IS what the Seria Club wishes it were. The sum total if its members, not in need of Corporate Sponsorship (or of blackmailing corporations to remain solvent.)
And we don’t need anti-American muslims, marxists, socialists or other ‘progressives’ in our government, Senator. But we have them…..if you really want to see what it is that we don’t need in America, Senator – just look in the mirror.
Of course, her assault weapons ban of 1994 was incredibly effective in keeping high capacity magazines out of the hands of criminals and drug gangs, right? Why, just look at the miraculous drop in the number of deaths due to gun violence in the inner city neighborhoods of Detroit, Chicago, DC, etc. etc. during ’94-’04.
The Dragon Lady just can’t deal with the fact that her signature piece of legislation was allowed to die a slow and most appropriate death.
The anti-gun libs in congress know very well that gun laws have little effect on crime prevention or saving lives. Deaths due to drug overdose in the US is about 4 times what it is for shootings, yet you don’t see DiFi pushing an anti-drug campaign, do you?
So if they know stricter gun laws don’t really save lives, why do you suppose they’re so adamant about restricting 2nd Amendment rights?
By a very quick basic search on this internet thingy, it looks like there were at least 3 mass shootings in the US during Feinstein’s assault weapons ban over the 10 years it was in effect.
What in the world makes her or anyone else think such a ban imposed now would result in a different outcome???
That gun ban, statistically according to the federal government itself, did nothing for the crime rate – so why bother going through it again?
I guess the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result – is the basic mindset of the liberals….
Scott – You are absolutely right: “I guess the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result – is the basic mindset of the liberals….” To be a Democrat is to suffer from a form of mental illness.